Andersen v. Young et al Doc.

18
Case 5:07-cv-03766-JW Document 18 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 1 of 3

1 PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP

SARAH G. FLANAGAN 70845
2 sarah.flanagan@pillsburylaw.com
JASON A. CATZ 224205
3 jason.catz@pillsburylaw.com50 Fremont Street
Post Office Box 7880
4 San Francisco, CA 94120-7880
Telephone: (415) 983-1000
5 Facsimile: (415) 983-1200

6 Attorneys for Defendants

STANFORD UNIVERSITY and MAIA YOUNG
7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 SAN JOSE DIVISION

11 )
SOREN ANDERSEN, ) No. C-07-03766 (JW)
12 )
Plaintiff, ) STANFORD UNIVERSITY’S AND
13 ) MAIA YOUNG’S REQUEST FOR
vs. ) JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF
14 ) MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST
MAIA YOUNG, an individual; STANFORD ) AMENDED COMPLAINT
15 UNIVERSITY, a business entity unknown; ) PURSUANT TO FRCP 12(b)(1) AND
and DOES 1-100, inclusive, ) (6)
16 )
Defendant. ) Date: November 19, 2007
17 ) Time: 9:00 a.m.
) Dept.: Courtroom 8
18 Judge: Hon. James Ware
19
Defendants STANFORD UNIVERSITY and MAIA YOUNG respectfully request
20
that this Court take judicial notice of the following documents contained in the court files in
21
the case entitled Andersen v. Young, Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 1-04-CV-
22
042734 (“State Court Action”) and the appellate record for that case:
23
1. “First Amended Complaint for Defamation” (filed July 13, 2004), a court-
24
certified copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
25
2. “Statement of Decision; Order” (filed August 31, 2004), a court-certified
26
copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
27

28
700790340v1 -1- MOTION TO DISMISS
Case No. C-07-03766

Dockets.Justia.com
 Case 5:07-cv-03766-JW Document 18 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 2 of 3

1 3. Decision of Court of Appeal of the State of California, Sixth Appellate

2 District in Case Nos. H029484 and H029742 (filed November 6, 2006), a court-certified

3 copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit C.

4 4. California Supreme Court’s denial of Plaintiff’s Petition for Review in Case

5 No. S148839 (filed January 17, 2007), a court-certified copy of which is attached hereto as

6 Exhibit D.

7 5. “Order Granting Motion for Attorneys’ Fees Pursuant to CCP 425.16 On

8 Remand” (filed June 22, 2007), a court-certified copy of which is attached as Exhibit E.

9 Defendants’ request for judicial notice is based upon Rule 201(b)(2) of the Federal

10 Rules of Evidence, which allows courts to take judicial notice of facts “not subject to

11 reasonable dispute” that are “capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to

12 sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Rule 201(b)(2) allows judicial

13 notice of court records of other cases. See Kourtis v. Cameron, 419 F.3d 989, 994 n.2 (9th

14 Cir. 2005) (holding that court records from related proceedings can be taken into account
15 without converting a motion to dismiss into a summary judgment motion); Shaw v. Hahn,
16 56 F.3d 1128, 1129 n.1 (9th Cir. 1995) (taking judicial notice of court records in connection
17 with a motion to dismiss); MGIC Indemnity Corp. v. Weisman, 803 F.2d 500, 504 (9th Cir.
18 1986) (taking judicial notice of pleading filed in separate action).
19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
700790340v1 -2- MOTION TO DISMISS
Case No. C-07-03766
 Case 5:07-cv-03766-JW Document 18 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 3 of 3

1 Therefore, Defendants respectfully request that the Court take judicial notice of the

2 above-entitled documents in this proceeding.

3 Dated: August 31, 2007.

4 PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP

SARAH G. FLANAGAN
5 JASON A. CATZ
50 Fremont Street
6 Post Office Box 7880
San Francisco, CA 94120-7880
7

8
By /s/ Jason A. Catz
9
Attorneys for Defendants STANFORD
10 UNIVERSITY and MAIA YOUNG
11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
700790340v1 -3- MOTION TO DISMISS
Case No. C-07-03766